Lacking anything else to write about, George Will adds a chapter to the press's War on Liberalism. This one contends that conservatives are happier than liberals, based on a public opinion poll.
You probably think I'm going to rail on Will and the column, froth at the mouth at such a blasphemous allegation.
But I won't. For one, if I did, it would prove Will's argument. Second, the column is just too stupid to be legitimately angry over. Third, despite it's stupidity, I don't doubt that at least some conservatives are happier than some liberals, and that therefore, Will may have a point.
I'll get to the column's empty-headedness later, but for now, let me offer some evidence for why conservatives may be happier than liberals. While I don't know any happy conservatives, there are some sound theoretical reasons why they could be happier. First, let's consider some conservative typologies. One type of conservative is the religious fundamentalist conservative. Religious conservatives could be happy people because they have allowed themselves to jettisone all reason. If you don't worry about reason or evidence, if as Sam Harris notes in The End of Faith, there is no evidence that would cause you to change your religious beliefs, than reason really is of minimal importance for you, and you could conceivably be a pretty happy person, believing you go to heaven when you die, to live throughout eternity with your friends and family. As the famous Christian apologist and novelist G.K. Chesterton says in his book Orthodoxy, "an insane person is not someone who has lost his reason, he is someone who has lost everything except his reason". So reason may be holding us liberals back. I'll concede that. Of course, because faith also tends to be joined by strict and, by most measures, unreasonable rules, in real life faith does not always lend itself to happiness. Particularly if church teaches you to be insecure in your salvation. Roman Catholicism and Weslyian Protestantism tend to emphasize the role of works in salvation and the importance of always staying on guard less you lose your faith. Calvinistic Protestants, on the other hand, who preach a version of pre-destination, hold that certain people, believers, are pre-destined to be saved and for them, salvation is assured because God's grace covers us. The latter would theoretically be happier than the former.
The other type of rabid conservative is the racist conservative. I know racism is a heavy charge to levy, but these are the conservatives you will find pushing for English only laws, building a wall on the Mexican border, "invading Muslim countries and making them convert to Christianity"*, and otherwise expressing displeasure when the "other" is benefited by government policy. These people, from my experience, are rarely happy, believing as they do that the world is conspiring against them.
Mainstream conservatives (you might be wondering if I think any exist) are essentially moderate liberals, and probably hold generally libertarian view points, preferring the government not be involved in either the economy or a person's bedroom. Maybe these are the conservatives Will knows. By his column I'm forced to conclude he doesn't know either the religious or racist conservatives.
Which brings us, I suppose, to the moronic parts of Will's column today.
You might be wondering, if, as Will claims, conservatives are just a happy go lucky bunch of folks, where do the Rush Limbaugh's and Michael Savages of the world fit into this picture of conservative utopia? You know, the ones that talk about exterminating liberals, and how "liberalism is a mental disorder"?
Good question. Mr. Will?
Nevertheless, normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals.
Ah. The "gladiators" get a pass. They don't count. Sounds a little selective for this social scientist. If you subset the conservative sample by deleting Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Little Green Footballs, John Gibson, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennet, and the WSJ editorial page, then how many conservatives are left?
Anyway, after dismissing the influence of "the gladiators of talk radio"--who only have millions of listeners by the way--Will wraps up the column by charging liberalism with being "scoldish".
You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.
Liberalism as "exacting" and "scoldish"? I thought liberals were "moral relativists". How can we be indifferent, morally relativistic"libertines"** and be "exacting" and "scoldish" at the same time?
Part of the problem we see in Will's worldview is the conventional wisdom of labeling conservatives as defenders of traditional values, as advocates of moral absolution, while labeling liberals as moral relativists. This view denies that both ideological extremes are highly moralistic, "exacting" and "scolding". Conservatives and liberals just care about different stuff. For conservatives, being gay is morally evil. For liberals, saddling our descendents with our debt, and bombing innocent civilians are morally evil. Both philosophies are heavily moralistic.
But the conventional wisdom, spoon-fed to the Deborah Howells and Jim Brady's of the world (Abramoff "directed" money to both parties) by the Republican Noise Machine*** is undeterred.
So when liberals are found to be concerned about an issue and desiring political action, they are labeled as "scolds", while when conservatives mount a challenge to the behavior of others, they are labeled as "conservatives" concerned with "traditional values".
Anyway, my job is done here. After watching some moral relativism on TV, I'll be off to my anger management session.
*see Coulter, Ann
**see O'Reilly, Bill
***see Brock, David
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Paradoxes of Modernity
It's rare I find the Wash Post op-eds thought provoking, but this column by David Ignatius offers two inadvertent, and counterintuitive consequences of globalization, and the worldwide information technology revolution.
The question Ignatius poses is why with the increase in "connectiveness" between world governments and the global community, is U.S. foreign policy continually beset with messiness, be it the aftermath of the "cartoon" riots, the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the insurgency in Iraq, or the resurgence of fundamentalism, or at least international hostility from the regime in Iran, and so on.
Based on conversations with two international and communications specialists, Ignatius relates two major elements of blowback from increasing international communication and expanding technology.
The first is a tendency for increased trade, technology and communication to widen the divide between the governing and the governed. Governmental, economic and intellectual elites become disconnected from the mass of their populations, setting the stage for major upheavals. Ignatius points back to Iran in 1975 as an example of a country that appeared to be heading successfully into the modern era, only to fall back into medieval Islamic fervor and control. Although Ignatius doesn't go there, and it may not be the case in every society, but the increase in trade and technology has undoubtedly helped widened the gap between the haves and have nots of a society as well, providing an additional source of, yes, class conflict.
The second element is the sad reality that increased technology has too often served as a means whereby ignorance and hate gets spread faster than ever before. Hence the cartoon riots. Ignatius also points readers to the "American blogosphere", having in mind no doubt the responses that poor ombudswoman, Deborah Howell experienced several weeks ago when the Washington Post was caught peddling GOP talking points regarding Jack Abramoff.
Ignatius's complaints about the "American blogosphere" aside, I couldn't help but think that not only do these two elements of connectiveness apply in a negative way just on the "Arab street" or in other parts of the world, but that America itself is a confusing picture of modernity and medievalism colliding. I'm thinking in particular of the rising influence of Christian fundamentalists. Conservatives have been quick and happy to point out that so-called liberal or moderate denominations are stagnating while conservative evangelical churches have been t thriving. While education is increasing, consumer goods more abundant, and developments in science and medicine increasing exponentially, America is at the same time becoming more ignorant and paranoid. The events of 911 obviously had a great impact on the American mood, much for the worse. The dominance of Fox News and her cable imitators have poisoned the well further, although Roger Ailes might validly argue that his network's success is the result of the public mood, rather than a cause of it.
In any event, we seem to be faced with both rapidly expanding technological prowess and education wherewithall at the same time we're busy reverting to 13th century feudalism in our religious dogma and international reactiveness.
A disturbing confirmation of this troubling trend and paradox is China. It's a gospel tenet of utmost sanctity in educated circles that free markets and capitalism lead to greater economic growth and prosperity, which in turn begets political pluralism and democratic freedoms.
But while near enough to truthiness in some cases, China has been a glaring exception, as recent reports about the roles played by Internet giants Yahoo! and Google in China have indicated. Although loosening the grip of the Communist Party's rigid economic dogma in China, Beijing's leaders appear more determined than ever to prevent the next evolution of political liberalization to accompany its economic one.
The disturbing implication is that the U.S. could continue to get richer and more technologically savy, free trade, globalization and all, and still takes steps backward politically, back into the pre-modern era that so many conservatives, especially religious ones, seem only too eager that we embrace at their behest.
One final area of discomfort concerns The Emerging Democratic Majority thesis put forward a few years ago by political scientists John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. The authors basically contend that demographic and labor force trends are moving the Democrats way; the proportion of minorities is increasing, the shift to a knowledge-based economy, and increasing levels of education, among other factors, will help liberalize the future electorate, if not in name, at least in partisan outcomes.
While there is undoubtedly some basis for optimism from increasing education, urbanization, and so on, a political scientist observing the political scene in the 1970's could have been forgiven if he or she had forecast much of the same thing for our own era. Civil Rights reforms had enfranchised large numbers of African-Americans. The voting age was just about to be lowered to 18. Women would continue to enter the labor force better educated and in greater numbers than ever before. More people, thanks to federal aid, were going to college. More people were waiting longer to marry and have children, and on and on. But the last three decades have been, at least in partisan terms, Republican instead of Democratic. Meanwhile, while Republicans have gained across the country, the culture, thanks in part to a changing economy, has gotten more liberal. As Thomas Franks notes in What's the Matter with Kansas?, the conservatives' cultural war has been a bust. Abortion continues. Gays are more accepted. Trashy TV still sells (just ask Fox).
Everything is Paradoxical.
The question Ignatius poses is why with the increase in "connectiveness" between world governments and the global community, is U.S. foreign policy continually beset with messiness, be it the aftermath of the "cartoon" riots, the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the insurgency in Iraq, or the resurgence of fundamentalism, or at least international hostility from the regime in Iran, and so on.
Based on conversations with two international and communications specialists, Ignatius relates two major elements of blowback from increasing international communication and expanding technology.
The first is a tendency for increased trade, technology and communication to widen the divide between the governing and the governed. Governmental, economic and intellectual elites become disconnected from the mass of their populations, setting the stage for major upheavals. Ignatius points back to Iran in 1975 as an example of a country that appeared to be heading successfully into the modern era, only to fall back into medieval Islamic fervor and control. Although Ignatius doesn't go there, and it may not be the case in every society, but the increase in trade and technology has undoubtedly helped widened the gap between the haves and have nots of a society as well, providing an additional source of, yes, class conflict.
The second element is the sad reality that increased technology has too often served as a means whereby ignorance and hate gets spread faster than ever before. Hence the cartoon riots. Ignatius also points readers to the "American blogosphere", having in mind no doubt the responses that poor ombudswoman, Deborah Howell experienced several weeks ago when the Washington Post was caught peddling GOP talking points regarding Jack Abramoff.
Ignatius's complaints about the "American blogosphere" aside, I couldn't help but think that not only do these two elements of connectiveness apply in a negative way just on the "Arab street" or in other parts of the world, but that America itself is a confusing picture of modernity and medievalism colliding. I'm thinking in particular of the rising influence of Christian fundamentalists. Conservatives have been quick and happy to point out that so-called liberal or moderate denominations are stagnating while conservative evangelical churches have been t thriving. While education is increasing, consumer goods more abundant, and developments in science and medicine increasing exponentially, America is at the same time becoming more ignorant and paranoid. The events of 911 obviously had a great impact on the American mood, much for the worse. The dominance of Fox News and her cable imitators have poisoned the well further, although Roger Ailes might validly argue that his network's success is the result of the public mood, rather than a cause of it.
In any event, we seem to be faced with both rapidly expanding technological prowess and education wherewithall at the same time we're busy reverting to 13th century feudalism in our religious dogma and international reactiveness.
A disturbing confirmation of this troubling trend and paradox is China. It's a gospel tenet of utmost sanctity in educated circles that free markets and capitalism lead to greater economic growth and prosperity, which in turn begets political pluralism and democratic freedoms.
But while near enough to truthiness in some cases, China has been a glaring exception, as recent reports about the roles played by Internet giants Yahoo! and Google in China have indicated. Although loosening the grip of the Communist Party's rigid economic dogma in China, Beijing's leaders appear more determined than ever to prevent the next evolution of political liberalization to accompany its economic one.
The disturbing implication is that the U.S. could continue to get richer and more technologically savy, free trade, globalization and all, and still takes steps backward politically, back into the pre-modern era that so many conservatives, especially religious ones, seem only too eager that we embrace at their behest.
One final area of discomfort concerns The Emerging Democratic Majority thesis put forward a few years ago by political scientists John Judis and Ruy Teixeira. The authors basically contend that demographic and labor force trends are moving the Democrats way; the proportion of minorities is increasing, the shift to a knowledge-based economy, and increasing levels of education, among other factors, will help liberalize the future electorate, if not in name, at least in partisan outcomes.
While there is undoubtedly some basis for optimism from increasing education, urbanization, and so on, a political scientist observing the political scene in the 1970's could have been forgiven if he or she had forecast much of the same thing for our own era. Civil Rights reforms had enfranchised large numbers of African-Americans. The voting age was just about to be lowered to 18. Women would continue to enter the labor force better educated and in greater numbers than ever before. More people, thanks to federal aid, were going to college. More people were waiting longer to marry and have children, and on and on. But the last three decades have been, at least in partisan terms, Republican instead of Democratic. Meanwhile, while Republicans have gained across the country, the culture, thanks in part to a changing economy, has gotten more liberal. As Thomas Franks notes in What's the Matter with Kansas?, the conservatives' cultural war has been a bust. Abortion continues. Gays are more accepted. Trashy TV still sells (just ask Fox).
Everything is Paradoxical.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Religious Tolerance:What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been
Over the weekend I happened upon a "religious" program, one of the ones usually dedicated to the spreading of conservative politics, but which on presidential weekend, was conservative politics and theocracy to the nth degree.
The guy's remarks went something like this:
The puritans came over on the Mayflower to get away from religious intolerance in the old world, but then were intolerant themselves of religious minorities, such as Roger Williams who was exiled off to Rhode Island to start a new colony of religious dissidents. Later, congregationalists, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mormons, and other religious minorities came in for their own persecution. Then came intolerance for the atheists and secularists.
So far so good, right? Sounds about accurate.
But then the double kicker: the guy proceeds to say something to the effect that, hey, you know, Christians are always hearing how intolerant they are, but the fact is that even though Christians in America were intolerant towards other factions of Christians and other minorities, these groups eventually became accepted, so that proves how tolerant American Christians are. Or something. But now it's conservative Christians who are facing intolerance from other religions and atheists. Intolerable.
So even though conservative Republicans dominate all three branches of government, and an increasing share of state and local governments as well, and despite the fact that conservative evangelicals are said to comprise 35%-40% of the Republican Party, conservative Christians are under seige in America, afflicted, scorned, hated, chased from their homes, disowned, deprived of their churches and bibles, barred from home-schooling, and imprisoned for their faith.
How, despite all the seeming evidence to the contrary, do claims such as this one find an audience? Like the myth of the "liberal media", the myth of the persecuted conservative Christian grows by leaps and bounds by the minute.
Undoubtedly these myths persist because they are incubated within the realms of very secluded, narrow social groupings and associations, whose members are urged to listen only to approved sources of information, not that many members need the urging. The language and psychology of victimization, which the Right is so normally and loudly condemning of, has been adopted by the Right to aid its organizational cash-flow and its political agenda. The fact that the religious persecution myth is trumpeted from a well-to-do establishment of radio networks and cable television stations aids in this process, and may in fact, suggest a vast over-representation of financially and politically induced paranoia among religious conservatives.
The guy's remarks went something like this:
The puritans came over on the Mayflower to get away from religious intolerance in the old world, but then were intolerant themselves of religious minorities, such as Roger Williams who was exiled off to Rhode Island to start a new colony of religious dissidents. Later, congregationalists, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mormons, and other religious minorities came in for their own persecution. Then came intolerance for the atheists and secularists.
So far so good, right? Sounds about accurate.
But then the double kicker: the guy proceeds to say something to the effect that, hey, you know, Christians are always hearing how intolerant they are, but the fact is that even though Christians in America were intolerant towards other factions of Christians and other minorities, these groups eventually became accepted, so that proves how tolerant American Christians are. Or something. But now it's conservative Christians who are facing intolerance from other religions and atheists. Intolerable.
So even though conservative Republicans dominate all three branches of government, and an increasing share of state and local governments as well, and despite the fact that conservative evangelicals are said to comprise 35%-40% of the Republican Party, conservative Christians are under seige in America, afflicted, scorned, hated, chased from their homes, disowned, deprived of their churches and bibles, barred from home-schooling, and imprisoned for their faith.
How, despite all the seeming evidence to the contrary, do claims such as this one find an audience? Like the myth of the "liberal media", the myth of the persecuted conservative Christian grows by leaps and bounds by the minute.
Undoubtedly these myths persist because they are incubated within the realms of very secluded, narrow social groupings and associations, whose members are urged to listen only to approved sources of information, not that many members need the urging. The language and psychology of victimization, which the Right is so normally and loudly condemning of, has been adopted by the Right to aid its organizational cash-flow and its political agenda. The fact that the religious persecution myth is trumpeted from a well-to-do establishment of radio networks and cable television stations aids in this process, and may in fact, suggest a vast over-representation of financially and politically induced paranoia among religious conservatives.
Monday, February 20, 2006
President's Day Off
It may not have exactly been Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but I took advantage of the federal holiday to pay a visit to the National Cathedral. First I discovered that the church was not Roman Catholic, but is in fact, Episcopal. However, the church doesn't apparently actually belong to the Episcopals or anyone else. It seems to have a kind of independent status. According to the signs, the church also doesn't have an official membership, although it does provide regular services, including a daily mass, which I happened upon at the end. It turns out the service was officiated by a woman. Most UnRoman Catholic of it, if I hadn't known it already. The woman priest (priestess?) seemed quite gracious to the handful of parishioners who had stopped by to attend the noon-time mass.
The building itself was of course, for someone of my bland vanilla Protestant upbringing, quite impressive. Towering ceilings, colorful stained glass windows. I wandered for a while downstairs in the crypt, among the various smaller chapels, before realizing the main church was up above. Before I went up there, I learned that several people are buried in the church, including Helen Keller (her ashes, actually).
I also spent several minutes browsing the souvenir shop, in particular, the many books for sale. The store was well stocked with a wide range of religious books, many of them of the unorthodox variety. From the interned socialist and famous blind author and activist, to the female priest/ess and the modernist books available, I got the sense the church was lib, welcoming to gays, feminists, and federal bureaucrats working on their PhD's. This is a church I'd probably be happy to attend it it weren't so far from my home base in Columbia, MD.
From the cathedral proper, I went up the road to Bethesda's Landmark theatre and a 1:50 pm showing of Capote. I enjoyed the movie, which was set almost entirely in and around Capote's observation and writing of In Cold Blood. I hadn't realized Capote was friends with Harper Lee, the author of To Kill a Mockingbird. Just one of the tidbits I learned. Capote and Lee were both southerners, but living in NYC by the time they became famous (Helen Keller, mentioned earlier, was also from the south). The movie and the acting were good, although it was a little long and drawn out, for those of you fond of speedier films.
To wrap up the day I browsed the Barnes and Noble across the street, dutifully purchasing a book of Capote's short stories, although not In Cold Blood, which was on sale, but which I've read before.
So was my day for my benefit only, or did I have some larger good in mind, the saving of a friend who desperately needs to break out from under his family's oppressive rigidity by running his father's expensive car out the back windows of his equally expensive hill-top home? And how come these teens in John Hughes' movies lived so richly anyway?
Bueller? Bueller?
The building itself was of course, for someone of my bland vanilla Protestant upbringing, quite impressive. Towering ceilings, colorful stained glass windows. I wandered for a while downstairs in the crypt, among the various smaller chapels, before realizing the main church was up above. Before I went up there, I learned that several people are buried in the church, including Helen Keller (her ashes, actually).
I also spent several minutes browsing the souvenir shop, in particular, the many books for sale. The store was well stocked with a wide range of religious books, many of them of the unorthodox variety. From the interned socialist and famous blind author and activist, to the female priest/ess and the modernist books available, I got the sense the church was lib, welcoming to gays, feminists, and federal bureaucrats working on their PhD's. This is a church I'd probably be happy to attend it it weren't so far from my home base in Columbia, MD.
From the cathedral proper, I went up the road to Bethesda's Landmark theatre and a 1:50 pm showing of Capote. I enjoyed the movie, which was set almost entirely in and around Capote's observation and writing of In Cold Blood. I hadn't realized Capote was friends with Harper Lee, the author of To Kill a Mockingbird. Just one of the tidbits I learned. Capote and Lee were both southerners, but living in NYC by the time they became famous (Helen Keller, mentioned earlier, was also from the south). The movie and the acting were good, although it was a little long and drawn out, for those of you fond of speedier films.
To wrap up the day I browsed the Barnes and Noble across the street, dutifully purchasing a book of Capote's short stories, although not In Cold Blood, which was on sale, but which I've read before.
So was my day for my benefit only, or did I have some larger good in mind, the saving of a friend who desperately needs to break out from under his family's oppressive rigidity by running his father's expensive car out the back windows of his equally expensive hill-top home? And how come these teens in John Hughes' movies lived so richly anyway?
Bueller? Bueller?
Sunday, February 19, 2006
The Da Vinci Code
I'm re-reading The Da Vinci Code. Partly because the movie's release, scheduled for May, has piqued my interest again. And partly because when I read it the first time, I read it mostly for the story, not paying real strict attention to the religious details. Although the religious angle was obviously central to the book's intrigue, and is a high interest of mine, I didn't take the book's various allegations all that seriously. I was just along for the ride.
My initial feeling about it was that while the book did include a lot of what devout Christians, or at least conservative Catholics would consider to be blasphemous references, the end of the book seemed to blur that effect somewhat. So to me the book really didn't come down all that hard on orthodox Christianity, despite the claims of the book's and the author's detractors. It seemed to me that the author's portrayal of the Catholic church in general, and of the secretive organization, Opus Dei in particular, was more sensitive than many popular accounts of the book make it seem. In any event, critiques of the church's origins, the nature of Christ, and so forth, fictional or otherwise, aren't all that unusual, given how little we really know of ancient times without printing presses and Internet connections, and given the Catholic church's sordid history along many other lines, such as the inquisition, the various scandals surrounding many of the popes, it's many false claims that modernity has exposed (such as those surrounding Galileo and the earth as the center of the universe), and so on.
So why the big deal about this book?
Maybe the church thinks people are more attentive to religious detail in non-sanctioned works than they really are. Maybe the fact that the allegations of church fraud and cover-up are so recent has caused it to respond more vigorously to this book than would seem warranted. And of course, that a gazillion copies of the book, hard-cover no less, have been sold has been a critical factor in the church's response (by both Roman Catholic and Protestant it should be mentioned).
Aware that a call for a boycott would undoubtedly stir up greater interest in the movie, the church has been somewhat cautious in its criticisms of the upcoming release, preferring to instead try to counter the book's arguments through its own media outlets and institutions, hoping to ensure that the faithful are kept in line, or at least are given adequate tools to respond so as to make sure their faith is not unsettled. Preaching to the choir, so to speak, rather than taking their complaints mainstream.
In any event, I'm re-reading it hoping to clarify some of the book's religious claims, which the author says are factual.
My initial feeling about it was that while the book did include a lot of what devout Christians, or at least conservative Catholics would consider to be blasphemous references, the end of the book seemed to blur that effect somewhat. So to me the book really didn't come down all that hard on orthodox Christianity, despite the claims of the book's and the author's detractors. It seemed to me that the author's portrayal of the Catholic church in general, and of the secretive organization, Opus Dei in particular, was more sensitive than many popular accounts of the book make it seem. In any event, critiques of the church's origins, the nature of Christ, and so forth, fictional or otherwise, aren't all that unusual, given how little we really know of ancient times without printing presses and Internet connections, and given the Catholic church's sordid history along many other lines, such as the inquisition, the various scandals surrounding many of the popes, it's many false claims that modernity has exposed (such as those surrounding Galileo and the earth as the center of the universe), and so on.
So why the big deal about this book?
Maybe the church thinks people are more attentive to religious detail in non-sanctioned works than they really are. Maybe the fact that the allegations of church fraud and cover-up are so recent has caused it to respond more vigorously to this book than would seem warranted. And of course, that a gazillion copies of the book, hard-cover no less, have been sold has been a critical factor in the church's response (by both Roman Catholic and Protestant it should be mentioned).
Aware that a call for a boycott would undoubtedly stir up greater interest in the movie, the church has been somewhat cautious in its criticisms of the upcoming release, preferring to instead try to counter the book's arguments through its own media outlets and institutions, hoping to ensure that the faithful are kept in line, or at least are given adequate tools to respond so as to make sure their faith is not unsettled. Preaching to the choir, so to speak, rather than taking their complaints mainstream.
In any event, I'm re-reading it hoping to clarify some of the book's religious claims, which the author says are factual.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Somebody Woke Up with a Horse's Head Underneath His Covers
Shooting Victim Apologizes to Shooter
Harry Whittington said Friday he was sorry for what Dick Cheney and his family have "had to go through" after the vice president shot him in a weekend hunting accident.
Man Shot by Shooter Says He's Sorry for Shooter
"My family and I are deeply sorry for everything Vice President Cheney and his family have had to deal with," he said.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Op-Ed Round Up
First, George Will lambastes the administration's NSA spying policy, making the same connection Senator Bulworth made at this very web blog last month:
Anyway, the argument that the AUMF contained a completely unexpressed congressional intent to empower the president to disregard the FISA regime is risible coming from this administration. It famously opposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes.
The administration's argument about the legality of the NSA program also has been discordant with its argument about the urgency of extending the USA Patriot Act. Many provisions of that act are superfluous if a president's wartime powers are as far-reaching as today's president says they are.
So the Senator isn't alone in wondering how one's "strict constructivism" and judicial "originalism" beliefs are supposed to mesh with the highly ambiguous, extra-constitutional, loosey-goosey, "unitary-executive" theory and the presidential activism inherent in "presidential signing statements".
Meanwhile, on the Shooter front, David Brooks has been reading our blogs, and isn't pleased with our conspiracy-mongering:
So in the days following the Cheney-Whittington accident, liberal pundits had to live up to their responsibility to manufacture a series of unsubstantiated allegations while turning the episode into a Clifford Odets-style tale of plutocrats gone wild. "Was he drunk? I mean, these are ultrarich Republicans, at a weekend, fun-time hunting," the pundit Lawrence O'Donnell wondered on MSNBC.
Meanwhile over at the blogosphere, the keyboard jockeys had a responsibility to sniff up vast conspiracies and get lost in creepy minutiae. "The 50,000 acre Armstrong Ranch is in Kenedy County. So I figure the Armstrongs probably have a lot of pull in county government. So, just a question: how thorough was the investigation of what happened?" the influential blogger Josh Marshall queried darkly. Earlier, he veered off, as he must, into picayune and skin-crawling theorizing about the path the pellets took through Whittington's body:
"Would the weapon and ammunition Dick Cheney shot have the force to imbed pellets near Whittington's heart at 30 yards? ... These pellets would have to have pierced his clothing, his skin and then lodged inside the body cavity, somewhere near or around his heart. The shot came from the right and the heart is on the left so that might add to the amount of tissue needing to be traversed."
Hear that, you liberal web-bloggerers? So the VP shot some guy, didn't allow himself to be interviewed by authorities until some 14-18 hours after the incident. Big deal. Doesn't mean he was too drunk to do so. It just means that the VP, even though he did have something to smooth over the edges before going hunting, didn't want to concern the authorities with the fact that he accidently shot some bb's into his friend, who was really at fault anyway, for getting hisself shot. Probably Shooter didn't want to risk his friend being arrested for not announcing himself properly.
Beyond that, Josh M and Jack Cafferty, Howie sez that Cheney's choice of Hume to "interview" him was a fair and balanced one, since the F network is the number one cable "news" station and of all the networks out there, only the F one gives the Repubs a fair shake. So double double there, you far left bloggerers.
Anyway, the argument that the AUMF contained a completely unexpressed congressional intent to empower the president to disregard the FISA regime is risible coming from this administration. It famously opposes those who discover unstated meanings in the Constitution's text and do not strictly construe the language of statutes.
The administration's argument about the legality of the NSA program also has been discordant with its argument about the urgency of extending the USA Patriot Act. Many provisions of that act are superfluous if a president's wartime powers are as far-reaching as today's president says they are.
So the Senator isn't alone in wondering how one's "strict constructivism" and judicial "originalism" beliefs are supposed to mesh with the highly ambiguous, extra-constitutional, loosey-goosey, "unitary-executive" theory and the presidential activism inherent in "presidential signing statements".
Meanwhile, on the Shooter front, David Brooks has been reading our blogs, and isn't pleased with our conspiracy-mongering:
So in the days following the Cheney-Whittington accident, liberal pundits had to live up to their responsibility to manufacture a series of unsubstantiated allegations while turning the episode into a Clifford Odets-style tale of plutocrats gone wild. "Was he drunk? I mean, these are ultrarich Republicans, at a weekend, fun-time hunting," the pundit Lawrence O'Donnell wondered on MSNBC.
Meanwhile over at the blogosphere, the keyboard jockeys had a responsibility to sniff up vast conspiracies and get lost in creepy minutiae. "The 50,000 acre Armstrong Ranch is in Kenedy County. So I figure the Armstrongs probably have a lot of pull in county government. So, just a question: how thorough was the investigation of what happened?" the influential blogger Josh Marshall queried darkly. Earlier, he veered off, as he must, into picayune and skin-crawling theorizing about the path the pellets took through Whittington's body:
"Would the weapon and ammunition Dick Cheney shot have the force to imbed pellets near Whittington's heart at 30 yards? ... These pellets would have to have pierced his clothing, his skin and then lodged inside the body cavity, somewhere near or around his heart. The shot came from the right and the heart is on the left so that might add to the amount of tissue needing to be traversed."
Hear that, you liberal web-bloggerers? So the VP shot some guy, didn't allow himself to be interviewed by authorities until some 14-18 hours after the incident. Big deal. Doesn't mean he was too drunk to do so. It just means that the VP, even though he did have something to smooth over the edges before going hunting, didn't want to concern the authorities with the fact that he accidently shot some bb's into his friend, who was really at fault anyway, for getting hisself shot. Probably Shooter didn't want to risk his friend being arrested for not announcing himself properly.
Beyond that, Josh M and Jack Cafferty, Howie sez that Cheney's choice of Hume to "interview" him was a fair and balanced one, since the F network is the number one cable "news" station and of all the networks out there, only the F one gives the Repubs a fair shake. So double double there, you far left bloggerers.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Can Someone Please Page the "Liberal" Media?
The NYT this morning has a piece in the Arts section (reminding us, however unintentionally, that the media is an art, as opposed to a factual or reality based production) on CNN's Lou Dobbs, emphasizing the host's immigration obsession seen through his nightly "broken borders" segment, which usually comes complete with some hysterical reference to the impact of "illegals" coming over the border from Mexico, the threat from terrorism, regular crime, and jobs that said brown people speaking a funny language have on good old Americans.
Anyway, the piece says
Night after night, Lou Dobbs slides into his anchor chair, turns to the camera and becomes the sober and steady face of CNN. At 60, he has more than three decades of experience, silvering hair and a voice that rumbles with authority. And for most of his program, he looks and feels like a traditional, nothing-but-the-news television host.
Then the topic turns to illegal immigration, and the sober newsman starts breathing fire.
Mr. Dobbs batters the Bush administration for doing too little to stop millions of migrants from slipping across the border with Mexico. He slams businesses and advocacy groups for helping illegal aliens thrive here. He hails the beleaguered officials who struggle to enforce immigration laws. As his scorching commentaries spill across the nation's television screens, first-time viewers might be forgiven for rubbing their eyes in wonder.
Here is Mr. Dobbs, discussing the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to legislation that would make it a federal crime to assist illegal immigrants: "Tonight, the effort to secure this nation's borders has a new opponent. It is the Catholic Church."
Here he is on the Minutemen, the civilians labeled "vigilantes" by their critics for patrolling the border — sometimes armed — in search of illegal immigrants: "I support the Minuteman Project and the fine Americans who make it up in all they've accomplished, fully, relentlessly and proudly."
And here he is criticizing the White House: "How about a congressional investigation of this administration that refuses to enforce either immigration laws or border security, period?"
(snip)
Many conservatives praise him for giving a rare national platform to people who fear that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from Americans, fueling violent crime and threatening national security. Critics deride him as anti-immigrant, racist and biased, charges he fiercely denies. One Democratic congressman was so incensed that he stood up on the House floor last year to denounce Mr. Dobbs's continuing series "Broken Borders" as a "broken record."
But Mr. Dobbs remains unapologetic. He says he has no interest in assuming the conventional role of the anchor who reports the news dispassionately. His mission, he says, is to tell American viewers the truth, no matter how uncomfortable or controversial.
"There's nothing fair and balanced about me," said Mr. Dobbs, tweaking his Fox News rivals' slogan, as he settled into his office overlooking Central Park one recent afternoon. "Because there's nothing fair and balanced about the truth. 'He says, she says' journalism is a monstrous cop-out."
"I happen to believe strongly and passionately that we are a nation of immigrants," he added. "But only fools with an agenda can defend illegal immigration."
(snip)
But by repeatedly presenting his forceful opinions on illegal immigration and other subjects — on "Moneyline" he criticized the Justice Department for indicting the accounting firm Arthur Andersen in the Enron scandal — Mr. Dobbs has stepped squarely into the debate over whether cable news anchors are breaching the bright line that has traditionally separated commentary from news.
(snip)
But for the fans of Mr. Dobbs's segments on illegal immigration, it is precisely his melding of reporting and forthright opinion that is such a powerful draw. "People across the country tune in to Lou Dobbs because they know their views on immigration will be presented," said Rosemary Jenks, director of governmental relations at NumbersUSA, a policy group that favors reducing immigration. "He is a hero to a lot of people."
Mr. Dobbs's critics, who sometimes appear on his program, acknowledge that he explores the issue of immigration more deeply than any other anchor on television. But, they complain, he fails to point out that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are hard-working people who take jobs that Americans don't want.
Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois, became so frustrated with the program that he invited Mr. Dobbs to Washington in 2004 to hear the concerns of about 12 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He said Mr. Dobbs listened politely, but his program remained the same.
It was Mr. Gutierrez who denounced the program on the House floor last year. "He says, 'I'm fair,' but then he portrays immigrants as purely law breakers and as a threat to our national security," Mr. Gutierrez said. "Meanwhile, he praises other lawbreakers — such as the vigilantes in the Minutemen. And I watch this, and I can't comprehend it."
Mr. Dobbs, who was born in Texas and grew up in Idaho, says he has worked on farms alongside migrant workers, picking beans, hauling potatoes and bailing hay. He says he appreciates the contributions that immigrants have made to this country, though he refuses to discuss his own immigrant heritage.
"One of the things I hate is hyphenated Americans," Mr. Dobbs said testily when a reporter tried to draw him out about his family's history. "I don't give a damn about all of that. We're just Americans."
Mr. Dobbs said he tried to include the voices of "people who would be ignored" because, in his view, too many reporters are too politically correct to give critics of illegal immigration a fair hearing. "Their voices have been denied," he said of many of his guests and viewers.
Mr. Dobbs, who owns a horse farm in New Jersey, says he has never hired an illegal alien. And as for offering a more nuanced portrayal of illegal immigrants on his program, he says he has no interest in treading that territory.
Instead, he plans to continue exposing what he describes as the collusion between the Bush administration, business executives and the Mexican government to disregard immigration laws so as to ensure that America's businesses have a steady stream of cheap labor and Mexico has an outlet for its poor.
"I know firsthand from my own experience that migrant workers are good people," Mr. Dobbs said. "That isn't the issue. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. If we fail as a nation of laws, the rest doesn't make one bit of difference."
So, after being exposed to snippets of Dobb's vitriol about immigrants through most of the piece we get to the end where the pugnacious cable tv "news" hosts says that his real concern is that we are a "nation of laws". He doesn't hate immigrants, mind you, he just cares about the law.
But strangely, we read earlier in the piece that Dobbs didn't like it that the Justice Department went after the accounting firm Arthur Anderson, as a part of the Enron investigation. I mean, after all, if Arthur Anderson was complicit or negligent regarding its Enron audits, they should be held accountable under the law, right? Apparently not, for lifelong Republican and big business schooze Lou Dobbs.
And maybe this has you wondering what Dobbs thought of the Plame scandal and the Fitzpatrick investigation into the violation of a CIA agent's cover. That's the law, right? Nation of laws, nobody's above the law? Dobbs was on the side of "the law" in that case, right? Dobbs was concerned that the sanctity of the law be enforced in this case, right? Um, no.
Maybe you wonder what Dobbs thinks of the law and Tom DeLay? He's on the side of the prosecutor, right? He cares about finding out whether Tom DeLay broke any campaign financing laws, right? Um, no.
So the law is important when it concerns Mexicans immigrants, but not anybody else, at least not his white skin, white collar buddies.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
A Plea for Civility
Events of the past several weeks have compelled me to issue a plea to my fellow lefty blogospherites to please be nice to the right-wing bloggers and media personnel behind the protective bubble. They're not used to being challenged, and quite frankly, don't deserve it.
I'm glad that Michael Berube has stepped forward to accept responsibility for his snarking of David Horowitz. That's a start. Michael should know that just because David made a harmless, unconfirmed report about some professor showing the movie Fahrenheit 911, which apparently never happened, to one of his classes, that that's no reason to suspect that David does not have the best interests of America's college students and America's universities at heart. Sure, sure, he gets a little carried away sometimes on his website and in his books, mocking free thought and calling for a McCarthite purge of the academic ranks, but really, let's cut the guy some slack. It's not like he's calling for affirmative action for conservative would-be professors who are too greedy to accept the profession's long hours and modest pay, and too anti-intellectual to put up with the profession's rigor and insufferable working conditions just to go through the exercise of getting advanced degrees.
But just as Michael was apologizing, Glenn Greenwald goes and makes things worse. Mr. Greenwald should know that the perfessor, Glenn Reynolds, also known as Instapundit, is a very busy man, so busy in fact that he can't put the time in to allowing comments on his blog*. So Greenwald shouldn't have troubled Perfessor Reynolds by asking readers to email the perfessor asking him to comment on or refute the "raghead" comments of fellow CPAC speaker Ann Coulter.
Mr. Reynolds, who shouldn't have to put up with this stuff, because really, he's just too busy, didn't care for the slew of emails that came his way. Why did Greenwald feel it necessary to rouse Perfessor Reynolds? Glenn Reynolds has long said that he just "ignores" Ann, why shouldn't we? It is true, as Greenwald says, that Reynolds has reached out to Democrats and lefty bloggers hoping to get them to repudiate the comments of someone like Ward Churchill, who just happens to be the chairperson of the Colorado Democratic Party, and speaks on behalf of all Democrats, when he says something outlandish. And it is true that Coulter is routinely on TV parrotting the Republican Party line, has called for Democratic party officials and liberal leaning justices to be assassinated, has several best sellers, is rabidly promoted by right wing blogs and news sites, and is the headline act at conservative conferences, but she really doesn't have anything to do with the Republican Party, so Greenwald should just butt out. Besides, Glenn had to contend with all these emails from "lefties" filling his mail box, and as has hopefully been made abundantly clear, he's just too busy for this kind of stuff.
Finally, I have to object to the way that poor wallflower of an editor, Jim Brady, has been treated by my brother and sister bloggers. I know, I know. Wasn't this matter over and done with, after the online "conference" (also attended by perfessor Reynolds despite his many time demands) where Jane sat before the inquisitors and faced their accusations of uncivility on the Internets? So, yes, I was surprised that Mr. Brady felt compelled to write yet again about the matter this past week, but that just shows how upset we've made him.
So, please, everybody, don't upset The Man. Moreover, let's take the Republicans' advice and cut our ties with any and all Democratic elected officials so that our bad odor won't rub off on them, causing them, the Democrats, to lose control of Congress and the presidency.
We can do it, if everyone will do their part.
*Washington, D.C.: Hi, my question is for Glenn and then maybe Jane would like to comment.
Why is it that most of the high traffic right-wing blogs don't take comments, while most of the left-wing blogs do?
From my perspective, it looks like the conservatives can dish it out, but can't take it, that they are uncomfortable subjecting their ideas to scrutiny on their own Web sites.
Jeff Jarvis: Heh.
Glenn Reynolds: I think that one reason has to do with media treatment. Charles Johnson, for example -- who does have comments -- has repeatedly faced media stories about his site in which comments made by his readers are directly attributed to him, as if he had written them. I certainly worry about that sort of thing, too. I think that lefty sites expect, and get, less of that kind of mistreatment.
I've never had comments. I get about 1000 emails a day, and I don't have time to look at those, post on my blog, AND moderate comments. And unmoderated comments raise a risk of the kind of thing I mention above, as well as possible libel and copyright issues. I've actually considered bringing someone in to do that, but that seems too impersonal.
Jeff Jarvis: But, Glenn, isn't it also true that your audience misses out on the wisdom your audience brings to you? Just as I'd tell the Post, the Times, the Guardian, et al, that they should take advantage of -- that is, enable and share -- the wisdom of their crowds, I think your public would be as interesting to read as you are. Of course, I grant that there is a cost that comes with this if you do moderate at your level of traffic v. mine. But I would love to see you find some way to be more interactive. Nick Denton and Gawker Media made that -- appropriate for them -- into a velvet-rope club where you have to be invited in. I wouldn't say that would work for you -- accusations of an echo chamber would follow. But I wonder whether isn't some way to increase your interactivity. But then the question is: Do you want to?
Glenn Reynolds: I don't know. My blog is a spare-time activity for me, and the sort of thing you describe would be another commitment of time. The Washington Post can have editors for their comments; I'd have to do it myself, or hire someone.
I am annoyed, though, by the sense of entitlement that some people bring to this discussion. The barriers to entry in blogging are very low. You want to get your ideas out? You can start a blog in 15 minutes. So why do you feel entitled -- and that's not too strong a word for what I hear sometimes -- to put your comments on someone else's site?
I'm glad that Michael Berube has stepped forward to accept responsibility for his snarking of David Horowitz. That's a start. Michael should know that just because David made a harmless, unconfirmed report about some professor showing the movie Fahrenheit 911, which apparently never happened, to one of his classes, that that's no reason to suspect that David does not have the best interests of America's college students and America's universities at heart. Sure, sure, he gets a little carried away sometimes on his website and in his books, mocking free thought and calling for a McCarthite purge of the academic ranks, but really, let's cut the guy some slack. It's not like he's calling for affirmative action for conservative would-be professors who are too greedy to accept the profession's long hours and modest pay, and too anti-intellectual to put up with the profession's rigor and insufferable working conditions just to go through the exercise of getting advanced degrees.
But just as Michael was apologizing, Glenn Greenwald goes and makes things worse. Mr. Greenwald should know that the perfessor, Glenn Reynolds, also known as Instapundit, is a very busy man, so busy in fact that he can't put the time in to allowing comments on his blog*. So Greenwald shouldn't have troubled Perfessor Reynolds by asking readers to email the perfessor asking him to comment on or refute the "raghead" comments of fellow CPAC speaker Ann Coulter.
Mr. Reynolds, who shouldn't have to put up with this stuff, because really, he's just too busy, didn't care for the slew of emails that came his way. Why did Greenwald feel it necessary to rouse Perfessor Reynolds? Glenn Reynolds has long said that he just "ignores" Ann, why shouldn't we? It is true, as Greenwald says, that Reynolds has reached out to Democrats and lefty bloggers hoping to get them to repudiate the comments of someone like Ward Churchill, who just happens to be the chairperson of the Colorado Democratic Party, and speaks on behalf of all Democrats, when he says something outlandish. And it is true that Coulter is routinely on TV parrotting the Republican Party line, has called for Democratic party officials and liberal leaning justices to be assassinated, has several best sellers, is rabidly promoted by right wing blogs and news sites, and is the headline act at conservative conferences, but she really doesn't have anything to do with the Republican Party, so Greenwald should just butt out. Besides, Glenn had to contend with all these emails from "lefties" filling his mail box, and as has hopefully been made abundantly clear, he's just too busy for this kind of stuff.
Finally, I have to object to the way that poor wallflower of an editor, Jim Brady, has been treated by my brother and sister bloggers. I know, I know. Wasn't this matter over and done with, after the online "conference" (also attended by perfessor Reynolds despite his many time demands) where Jane sat before the inquisitors and faced their accusations of uncivility on the Internets? So, yes, I was surprised that Mr. Brady felt compelled to write yet again about the matter this past week, but that just shows how upset we've made him.
So, please, everybody, don't upset The Man. Moreover, let's take the Republicans' advice and cut our ties with any and all Democratic elected officials so that our bad odor won't rub off on them, causing them, the Democrats, to lose control of Congress and the presidency.
We can do it, if everyone will do their part.
*Washington, D.C.: Hi, my question is for Glenn and then maybe Jane would like to comment.
Why is it that most of the high traffic right-wing blogs don't take comments, while most of the left-wing blogs do?
From my perspective, it looks like the conservatives can dish it out, but can't take it, that they are uncomfortable subjecting their ideas to scrutiny on their own Web sites.
Jeff Jarvis: Heh.
Glenn Reynolds: I think that one reason has to do with media treatment. Charles Johnson, for example -- who does have comments -- has repeatedly faced media stories about his site in which comments made by his readers are directly attributed to him, as if he had written them. I certainly worry about that sort of thing, too. I think that lefty sites expect, and get, less of that kind of mistreatment.
I've never had comments. I get about 1000 emails a day, and I don't have time to look at those, post on my blog, AND moderate comments. And unmoderated comments raise a risk of the kind of thing I mention above, as well as possible libel and copyright issues. I've actually considered bringing someone in to do that, but that seems too impersonal.
Jeff Jarvis: But, Glenn, isn't it also true that your audience misses out on the wisdom your audience brings to you? Just as I'd tell the Post, the Times, the Guardian, et al, that they should take advantage of -- that is, enable and share -- the wisdom of their crowds, I think your public would be as interesting to read as you are. Of course, I grant that there is a cost that comes with this if you do moderate at your level of traffic v. mine. But I would love to see you find some way to be more interactive. Nick Denton and Gawker Media made that -- appropriate for them -- into a velvet-rope club where you have to be invited in. I wouldn't say that would work for you -- accusations of an echo chamber would follow. But I wonder whether isn't some way to increase your interactivity. But then the question is: Do you want to?
Glenn Reynolds: I don't know. My blog is a spare-time activity for me, and the sort of thing you describe would be another commitment of time. The Washington Post can have editors for their comments; I'd have to do it myself, or hire someone.
I am annoyed, though, by the sense of entitlement that some people bring to this discussion. The barriers to entry in blogging are very low. You want to get your ideas out? You can start a blog in 15 minutes. So why do you feel entitled -- and that's not too strong a word for what I hear sometimes -- to put your comments on someone else's site?
The Cheney Shooting
I've delayed by approximately 48 hours commenting on this story that the VP's office initially delayed by 18 hours, largely because of the potential for something like this to happen.
Being shot in the face is no minor incident for a 78-year old man.
Update: What I meant was, I won't comment on this story except to say that this is disgusting. What are these people thinking? At long last, sir, have you no shame? Former U.S. Senator from Wyoming:
"When it's all through after a few days, people are going to laugh at the media for their overreaction," Mr. Simpson said in an interview from his home in Wyoming. "This is a hunting accident, created by the victim. Dick Cheney didn't do anything. He's a master hunter. And they're portraying him as some sort of assassin. I mean the headline I saw today was 'Cheney Bags Lawyer.'"
Being shot in the face is no minor incident for a 78-year old man.
Update: What I meant was, I won't comment on this story except to say that this is disgusting. What are these people thinking? At long last, sir, have you no shame? Former U.S. Senator from Wyoming:
"When it's all through after a few days, people are going to laugh at the media for their overreaction," Mr. Simpson said in an interview from his home in Wyoming. "This is a hunting accident, created by the victim. Dick Cheney didn't do anything. He's a master hunter. And they're portraying him as some sort of assassin. I mean the headline I saw today was 'Cheney Bags Lawyer.'"
Amateur Hour on the Campaign Trail
Although the president's low approval ratings, combined with 12 years of Republican rule of Congress, might otherwise be occasion for a Democratic tide in 2006, there are disturbing omens emenating from the campaign trail.
First, Paul Hackett is not only dropping out of the Ohio Senate race, machinations by Congressional Democratic campaign chairs behind the scenes for him to so has soured him on the party and any campaigns at least this year. Kos seems to think Hackett over-reached by going for the Senate instead of a House rematch with Jean Schmidt, and consequently, is eager to pass this off as much ado about nothing. I don't buy it. Neither do Steve Gilliard, the Alt Hippo, or Atrios, among others.
From everything I've seen of Hackett, he's the kind of bold candidate Democrats have been sorely lacking for the last several decades. Maybe Sherrod Brown, a traditionally liberal Democrat from the House, will be enough to beat DeWine. Perhaps. But the damage done by alienating Hackett and other potential candidates of his nature and background, could be substantial and long-lasting regardless of the short term outcome in this race.
But I'm afraid it gets worse.
Consider the role, surprisingly, of race. Republicans have essentially nominated one black gubernatorial candidate (and a well-known one) already in PA, and are apparently poised to add another in Ohio. What's more, the Republicans have at least one Senatorial candidate in Maryland, and maybe another in Michigan. Steve Gilliard, whose opinion on these matters I trust a great deal, is pretty dismissive of how these black GOP candidates will play, not only with black voters but with white, conservative ones as well. While I hope he's right, the fact that the Republicans are prepared to lead with black candidates in four different states at two important levels of government should give Democrats pause for concern.
How are the Democrats responding? The only black Democrat running for high office that I can think of is Kwasi Mfume for the U.S. Maryland seat, and by most indications, he's lagging behind the presumed front runner, congressman Ben Cardin, who's about as bland as the man he's vying to replace, and that's saying something. If Cardin outduels Mfume in the primary, than so be it.
But what efforts are Democrats making to cross their own cultural and demographic divide in reaching out to new voters, like military vets? Torpedoing Hackett's candidacy was not a step in the right direction.
Chuck Schumer has done well making money for the Senate Campaign Committee. And if former Secretary of the Navy James Webb ultimately runs against George Allen for the U.S. Senate seat from Virginia, it could be a major coup for the party. But Webb's potential candidacy aside, Democrats face tough campaigns just to HOLD Senate seats in 2006 in places like Maryland and New Jersey.
Meanwhile, Democratic gains in PA and Montana appear promising, while states like Missouri and Rhode Island (the latter of which should ordinarily be a lock) are in play for now.
Other states, unfortunately, like Nevada and Indiana, might not have a competitive Democrat running.
So while nothing ever goes as planned, the party goofed bit time in Ohio. Given the disasterous position of the Republican Party in that state, it would be the height of misfortune not to capitalize on it this year, and with their actions in the case of Paul Hackett, Senate Democrats have given Republicans a life line.
Update: a Hackett partisan, Lindsay Beyerstein, points out that Hackett was trailing Brown in the polls and falling behind in fundraising, so maybe this was inevitable in the primary context. In addition, Hackett's "I'll take my football and go home" bit was probably not the wisest course of action. Still Lindsay is optimistic Hackett we'll be back (and hopefully still on our side). As she says, "we need him".
First, Paul Hackett is not only dropping out of the Ohio Senate race, machinations by Congressional Democratic campaign chairs behind the scenes for him to so has soured him on the party and any campaigns at least this year. Kos seems to think Hackett over-reached by going for the Senate instead of a House rematch with Jean Schmidt, and consequently, is eager to pass this off as much ado about nothing. I don't buy it. Neither do Steve Gilliard, the Alt Hippo, or Atrios, among others.
From everything I've seen of Hackett, he's the kind of bold candidate Democrats have been sorely lacking for the last several decades. Maybe Sherrod Brown, a traditionally liberal Democrat from the House, will be enough to beat DeWine. Perhaps. But the damage done by alienating Hackett and other potential candidates of his nature and background, could be substantial and long-lasting regardless of the short term outcome in this race.
But I'm afraid it gets worse.
Consider the role, surprisingly, of race. Republicans have essentially nominated one black gubernatorial candidate (and a well-known one) already in PA, and are apparently poised to add another in Ohio. What's more, the Republicans have at least one Senatorial candidate in Maryland, and maybe another in Michigan. Steve Gilliard, whose opinion on these matters I trust a great deal, is pretty dismissive of how these black GOP candidates will play, not only with black voters but with white, conservative ones as well. While I hope he's right, the fact that the Republicans are prepared to lead with black candidates in four different states at two important levels of government should give Democrats pause for concern.
How are the Democrats responding? The only black Democrat running for high office that I can think of is Kwasi Mfume for the U.S. Maryland seat, and by most indications, he's lagging behind the presumed front runner, congressman Ben Cardin, who's about as bland as the man he's vying to replace, and that's saying something. If Cardin outduels Mfume in the primary, than so be it.
But what efforts are Democrats making to cross their own cultural and demographic divide in reaching out to new voters, like military vets? Torpedoing Hackett's candidacy was not a step in the right direction.
Chuck Schumer has done well making money for the Senate Campaign Committee. And if former Secretary of the Navy James Webb ultimately runs against George Allen for the U.S. Senate seat from Virginia, it could be a major coup for the party. But Webb's potential candidacy aside, Democrats face tough campaigns just to HOLD Senate seats in 2006 in places like Maryland and New Jersey.
Meanwhile, Democratic gains in PA and Montana appear promising, while states like Missouri and Rhode Island (the latter of which should ordinarily be a lock) are in play for now.
Other states, unfortunately, like Nevada and Indiana, might not have a competitive Democrat running.
So while nothing ever goes as planned, the party goofed bit time in Ohio. Given the disasterous position of the Republican Party in that state, it would be the height of misfortune not to capitalize on it this year, and with their actions in the case of Paul Hackett, Senate Democrats have given Republicans a life line.
Update: a Hackett partisan, Lindsay Beyerstein, points out that Hackett was trailing Brown in the polls and falling behind in fundraising, so maybe this was inevitable in the primary context. In addition, Hackett's "I'll take my football and go home" bit was probably not the wisest course of action. Still Lindsay is optimistic Hackett we'll be back (and hopefully still on our side). As she says, "we need him".
The West Wing Comes to Town
I went to hear Bradley Whitford speak at American University last night. His appearance was sponsored by the school of public affairs. He was introduced by someone from the school who bore an uncanny resemblance to Donna Moss (Janel Moloney), who played his assistant on the show, but who in the past season went to work for Vice President Bob Russell's (Gary Cole) campaign, while Whitford's character (Josh Lyman) lined up with future nominee and dark horse candidate, Texas Congressman Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits).
In any event, Whitford gave what I would label as a free wheeling speech, interweaving anecdotes and observations from his West Wing experience (and a delicious, self-deprecating reference to the Adam Sandler vehicle, Billy Madison, in which Whitford played the scheming brother--Whitford claims to not ever having actually watched the movie) with his political opinions and endeavors.
He joked that on behalf of the acting president, he thanked them for welcoming him.
On the substance, Whitford criticized the descent of political discourse, particularly on cable television (which reminded me of Jon Stewart's rap on his renowned Cross Fire visit), which he argued amounts to not much more than each side trading programmed talking points and insults, after which no one learns anything and no minds are changed, or at least even affected.
Whitford also deadpanned the acting business and the habit of celebrities to venture political opinions. He referred to these types of people, in typical self mocking style, as Meat Puppets. He admonished the audience that when people like him speak out to consider the speaker's motivation and their actual knowledge of the issues.
Still, he defended his and other's responsibility to speak out, and to not be intimidated into silence by some other self-appointed celebrity spokesman like Bill O'Reilly. Whitford says that while he and his Quaker family were politically in tune throughout his life, he was led to take a more active, public role in the past six years with the advent of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and towards the environment and his own emerging role as a father (his wife is actress Jane Kacsmarek of Malcolm in the Middle).
Of his West Wing experience Whitford is proud the series has emphasized the sad reality of how much time politicians spend worrying about how a particular issue will "play" rather than on what a particular policy's effects might be and what the right thing is to do. He also noted that the show transcends the limits of conventional political debate by casting its characters as neither totally villanous or virtuous, but as combinations of both.
Of the present, Whitford lamented the influence the media, in particular television, has on the selection of the country's political leaders. Saying its unfortunately more important for a candidate to "seem presidential" and to come across appealing on television than be a person of character and smarts, Whitford lamented the fact that schmoozers like Clinton and Bush get elected rather than more untelegenic candidates like Al Gore. Of Clinton, Whitford observed the former president is someone who, because of his troubled family background, has a very visible need to be loved, which affected his actions as president, while someone like Gore, who had a much stronger family background, was more content and not as inclined to try to make people like him, but that this paradoxically, made it harder for someone like Gore to relate well to the public.
Whitford also related his experience at the All Souls Church he attends in California, which because its pastor spoke out before the election became the object of an IRS investigation. Whitford says the pastor did not make an explicit candidate preference public and in fact, held up both Bush and Kerry to the scrutiny of Christian morals and found both lacking. Whitford went futher and called out the president and his evangelical backers on the matter of not practicing the faith they claim to uphold. Whitford noted that while the president has said that Christ has "changed his heart", Whitford hoped that knowing Christ would soon cause Bush to "change his policies".
What does Whitford plan to do after the West Wing ends this season? "Pursue opportunities in the private sector", he joked.
Whitford encouraged the audience to speak out, to be active, to engage in the right they hold as participants in a democracy, echoing the words of Nelson Mandella whom he quoted as saying that what people fear is not their inadequacies, but their power. People are more afraid of the light than the darkness in themselves, Whitford said.
Afterwards, Whitford didn't follow the practice of other celebrities, but went out of his "bubble" to take questions, the first of which was from a young woman who, in addition to asking a policy question, asked if she could get a lock of his hair. Surprisingly, the actor obliged the latter request.
Update: Sorry about all the updated posts today but I just remembered the most important comment of the night from Whitford. That comment was about how conservatives have succeeded, unfortunately, at making the word "liberal" a curseword. Whitford identified himself as a liberal, lamenting the treatment this term and the good works that have been carried out under its name has received from the media and political establishment.
Whitford didn't pick this ball up and run with it, but as readers of this blog will recognize, I think this is THE issue Democrats have to face in today's political debate and in future elections. If Democrats don't succeed in reversing the way labels like "conservative" and "liberal" are conceived and spoken of in public forums and cable tv news shout fests, they will have a much harder road to climb in winning back power. If the Democrats choose to run as conservatives (i.e. stressing "competence" or "corruption" over ideology), any electoral victories will ultimately prove to be temporal, resulting in all of us having these "what's wrong with the Democrats" conservations ten and twenty years from now.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Laura Bush is Angry
My usual policy is to keep the wives and families out of it, which is why you won't read any Jenna and NotJenna comments here.
But Laura Bush is one angry first lady. She ripped Hillary Clinton's comments about her hubby president.
So our topic for today is, Is Laura Bush Too Angry To Be First Lady? And Is George W. Bush A Panty-Waste For Letting His Wife Do His Fighting For Him? Can George W Bush Be President With Such An Angry First Lady?
Our Fair and Balanced debate on this topic will include Brit Hume, William Bennett, William Kristol, Ann Coulter, and Fred Barnes.
But Laura Bush is one angry first lady. She ripped Hillary Clinton's comments about her hubby president.
So our topic for today is, Is Laura Bush Too Angry To Be First Lady? And Is George W. Bush A Panty-Waste For Letting His Wife Do His Fighting For Him? Can George W Bush Be President With Such An Angry First Lady?
Our Fair and Balanced debate on this topic will include Brit Hume, William Bennett, William Kristol, Ann Coulter, and Fred Barnes.
Cowboy Presidents
After digging my car out of the 21 inches of snow dumped on Columbia, MD yesterday and last night, and after an around the corner trip to Dunkin' Donuts, I settled in to watch the tube. I usually skip the sunday talking heads shows, but I happened upon the beard's Late Edition where the guests were the media's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman, and the media's second favorite Republican, Chuck Hagel (maybe John McCain was on one of the other shows) and the discussion I dropped in on was about Iran.
Hagel talked for about five minutes without saying very much--"the administration seems to be going about it (dealing with Iran) the right way", "we need to work with Iran, provide the right kind of incentives, carrots, to dissuade them from going nuke, blah blah blah". I hear a lot about this notion of offering the right kind of inducements to get Iran to back off, but I can't imagine what sort of inducements we could offer, and the Senators, as well as their media hosts, don't usually specify.
Enter Joe Lieberman to say that while inducements are great and we've been trying them, it may come time to use the stick, which in this case Lieberman suggested would take the shape of diplomatic and economic sanctions, but I'm not sure what sort of economic sanctions Lieberman thinks would be meaningful or could be enforced. Diplomatically, I don't think we've had much of a relationship with Iran since 1979 and again, I'm not sure what countries the U.S. government would be in the position of getting to go heavy on Iran.
Which brings us to Iran's neighbor, Iraq. Iraq was a counterbalance to Iran, or at least that's what our government believed for several years until it felt incumbent to flex its muscles after 911 and topple one of the only secular Islamic regimes in the region.
But now, with Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni Muslims on the outside looking in as the new Shiite majority prepares to take over, we might wonder what the impact of our Iraq invasion has on our international efforts regarding Iran.
The Beard, in a moment of clarity, asked how the fact that the U.S. government was wrong about Iraq's nuclear and WMD capability affected the Bush regime's efforts to mobilize opposition to Iran's WMD?
Hagel, in an additional moment of insightfulness, responded that the U.S. status in Iraq is about the worst its been (presumably since the invasion) and that this obviously doesn't help the U.S. cause at all. Furthermore, Hagel quipped that from Iran's standpoint, there's a nuclear armed Israel in its locale and substantial U.S. military presence in its neighbor Iraq, so from Iran's point of view, it is undoubtedly acting in its own national security interests in its pursuit of nukes.
Lieberman followed up by complaining about the new (elected) Iranian president and how he had made comments in the line of wondering what the world would be like without the U.S. and of course the fact that he wished Israel to be wiped off the map.
The new Iranian president is a kind of cowboy when you think about it. Shoots from the hip, has this sort of reckless, one of the homeboys image, the kind of guy I bet a lot of Iranians would like to have a drink with. He says a lot of nationalistic, politically incorrect things, campaigned as a kind of reformer, restoring the religious revolution of the old days, would buck international efforts to tell his country what to do.
If we had an independent media in this country, we might hear some of them making comparisons between Iran's cowboy president and our own cowboy president.
And maybe if Iran's president had David Frum working for him, he might have already labeled the U.S., Israel, and Great Britain as the Axis of Evil.
Hagel talked for about five minutes without saying very much--"the administration seems to be going about it (dealing with Iran) the right way", "we need to work with Iran, provide the right kind of incentives, carrots, to dissuade them from going nuke, blah blah blah". I hear a lot about this notion of offering the right kind of inducements to get Iran to back off, but I can't imagine what sort of inducements we could offer, and the Senators, as well as their media hosts, don't usually specify.
Enter Joe Lieberman to say that while inducements are great and we've been trying them, it may come time to use the stick, which in this case Lieberman suggested would take the shape of diplomatic and economic sanctions, but I'm not sure what sort of economic sanctions Lieberman thinks would be meaningful or could be enforced. Diplomatically, I don't think we've had much of a relationship with Iran since 1979 and again, I'm not sure what countries the U.S. government would be in the position of getting to go heavy on Iran.
Which brings us to Iran's neighbor, Iraq. Iraq was a counterbalance to Iran, or at least that's what our government believed for several years until it felt incumbent to flex its muscles after 911 and topple one of the only secular Islamic regimes in the region.
But now, with Saddam Hussein's Baathist Sunni Muslims on the outside looking in as the new Shiite majority prepares to take over, we might wonder what the impact of our Iraq invasion has on our international efforts regarding Iran.
The Beard, in a moment of clarity, asked how the fact that the U.S. government was wrong about Iraq's nuclear and WMD capability affected the Bush regime's efforts to mobilize opposition to Iran's WMD?
Hagel, in an additional moment of insightfulness, responded that the U.S. status in Iraq is about the worst its been (presumably since the invasion) and that this obviously doesn't help the U.S. cause at all. Furthermore, Hagel quipped that from Iran's standpoint, there's a nuclear armed Israel in its locale and substantial U.S. military presence in its neighbor Iraq, so from Iran's point of view, it is undoubtedly acting in its own national security interests in its pursuit of nukes.
Lieberman followed up by complaining about the new (elected) Iranian president and how he had made comments in the line of wondering what the world would be like without the U.S. and of course the fact that he wished Israel to be wiped off the map.
The new Iranian president is a kind of cowboy when you think about it. Shoots from the hip, has this sort of reckless, one of the homeboys image, the kind of guy I bet a lot of Iranians would like to have a drink with. He says a lot of nationalistic, politically incorrect things, campaigned as a kind of reformer, restoring the religious revolution of the old days, would buck international efforts to tell his country what to do.
If we had an independent media in this country, we might hear some of them making comparisons between Iran's cowboy president and our own cowboy president.
And maybe if Iran's president had David Frum working for him, he might have already labeled the U.S., Israel, and Great Britain as the Axis of Evil.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Katrina Victims Still Homeless
For all the criticism which they so richly deserve, I don't want to pass over the times where the media, especially cable tv "news" programs, come through. Tonight, on CNN, Anderson Cooper was in New Orleans, documenting the continued hardship of the people there, and the desolateness of much of the community and neighborhoods five months after Katrina struck.
Worst of all are what appear to be continual problems with the availability of housing for New Orleans residents wanting to return, and for those who already have and are gamely trying to get on with their working lives. Apparently there continues to be a vast shortage of available housing and the hundreds if not thousands of trailer units that FEMA has, or were supposed to purchase, that remain sitting idly in trailer parks nearby while Katrina's victims live out of their vehicles or for those still in FEMA supported Hotel/Motel lodging, wait for this and next week's deadlines to come and evict them.
At a time when many of the other networks and cable "news" outlets, MSNBC *cough* Fox *cough* are running with the Entwistle murder case, CNN and Anderson Cooper are attempting to keep the focus on the substantive. Kudos to CNN for staying on the story.
Worst of all are what appear to be continual problems with the availability of housing for New Orleans residents wanting to return, and for those who already have and are gamely trying to get on with their working lives. Apparently there continues to be a vast shortage of available housing and the hundreds if not thousands of trailer units that FEMA has, or were supposed to purchase, that remain sitting idly in trailer parks nearby while Katrina's victims live out of their vehicles or for those still in FEMA supported Hotel/Motel lodging, wait for this and next week's deadlines to come and evict them.
At a time when many of the other networks and cable "news" outlets, MSNBC *cough* Fox *cough* are running with the Entwistle murder case, CNN and Anderson Cooper are attempting to keep the focus on the substantive. Kudos to CNN for staying on the story.
Fighting the Liberal Bias--in Ice Cream
Not an Onion article.
Firm Has Answer to Liberal Bias in Ice Cream Industry
Coming to a store near you.
Good grief.
Firm Has Answer to Liberal Bias in Ice Cream Industry
Coming to a store near you.
Good grief.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Puncture This, II
In our last post, we saw that the Don Imuses of the Media Industrial Complex have become bored with the "war" in Iraq, and to the extent that it reflects badly on the present ruling regime, they're just tired of the "whole debate", the jokes about "Rummy", the complaints about unarmored troops, etc.
So what does this mean? Well, it at least suggests that the MIC has implicitly, if not explicitly, accepted the notion that the war, as a vehicle of smashing the Middle East, neuturing Islam, and giving birth to a new American hegemony, born of either intimidation or good will, is lost. That some form of government will eventually form in Mesopotamia, whether as one or three nations, won't change the essentials of this conclusion.
So the war as an explicitly foreign endeavor, a symbol of America's international ambitions and prestige, has gone up in smoke.
But this doesn't mean that the "war" is over or that it doesn't still matter for the talking heads on MSNBCFoxCNN. This is because the war's other, more important internal dimension is still hanging by a thread. For many backers of the "war" in Iraq, its domestic aims were as important as its stated and contrived international ones.
And what were these domestic aims? To silence and, if possible, punish opposition to the Bush presidency and to the conservative establishment. To continue the climate of fear 911 had delivered. To help enforce conformity and remake American life. To spur a new ethic of "obedience", mass passivity, and submission to authority. To eradicate liberal individualism, academic freedom, and political and religious pluralism.
As I write these lines I'm a little shocked at myself. You're going overboard Bulworth. But am I? How has the MIC, particularly its cable variation, responded to Democratic Party opposition to the president, to the NSA spying reports, to the Alito nomination, first to Howard Dean and then to John Kerry's candidacy, to the movies and ads of so-called liberal symbols like Michael Moore and Moveon.org? In 2002-2003 we heard how vital it was that the country follow Bush's lead and go to war, "pre-emptively" against Iraq; what little war opposition existed was roundly treated as treasonous. And when the invasion failed to turn up WMD, it was 2004 and the MIC was then able to focus on John Kerry's alleged "flip-floppiness" rather than his war service, saluted the GOP's 2004 convention speakers who reiterated the "opposition to war as treason" line, failing to question the "purple heart bandaids" and angry talk of conventioneers like Zell Miller, and later trumpeted Bush's 51% victory in November as a "mandate".
As 2005 bloomed, the president's failing Social Security campaign, followed by the Terri Schiavo debacle, followed by the Harriet Myers nomination, and then the disasterous Katrina Hurricane and FEMA bungling made MIC cheerleading for the president difficult. Nonetheless, as 2006 began the MIC began sounding notes of the president's public opinion "rebound" although his approval numbers remained mired in the upper 30's and low to middle 40's.
The NSA spying report, meanwhile, has given the MIC the opportunity to reinsert the GWOT theme, criticizing opponents of the previously secret and poorly defended wiretapping project as "not wanting to do anything and everything possible to fight terrorism".
Simultaneously, the nation's political and religious pluralism is coming under increasing attack and scorn. The "war", for whichever country or "operation" that term is meant to imply these days, serves however indirectly, as a vehicle for strengthening the forces of theocracy, who see in it as a means of destroying Islam and enhancing America's global and religious prestige, and instilling fear and conformity at home. Emboldened by having "one of their own" in the WH, America's religious right, comprised of both Catholic and Protestant elites who were once bitter enemies, have dictated judicial selections, court and executive appointments and public policy generally, while inciting the passions of the faithful through three "Justice Sunday" events designed to draw attention to America's supposed Christian heritage and plea for substituting the Torah for the Constitution.
Coincidentally, the president's list of court applicants is composed almost entirely of representatives of The Federalist Society, formed in the 1980's in response to the liberalizing affects of the Warren and Burger Courts, and calling for a new judicial model known as "originalism" or "strict constructivism", which regardless of its name dejure, happens to support the restriction of privacy rights and civil liberties, while expanding the power of corporate and governmental elites.
In the lead up to the war, and during the war's initial months, one of the two or three media companies that owns and runs all the radio stations in America helped organize so-called "pro-war" rallies, events that were in truth more anti-American than pro-war, as speakers denounced regular and celebrity Americans opposed to the Iraq war or those who were in any way critical of the president. Records by the Dixie Chicks were smashed.
The two institutions largely insulated from the conservative reaction, university campuses and black churches, have come in for their own inspection and retribution. So-called "Academic Bills of Rights" have been initiated by several states with their stated intentions to target "liberal" or "unAmerican" professors and modernist views generally for punishment and expulsion. Meanwhile, when black civil rights leaders speak against the war during the funerals of their leaders, they're labeled as unnecessarily political and disrespectful of authority.
Right wing radio and cable TV hosts and guests routinely attack liberals and liberalism as unAmerican, vile, and degenerate, and call for the religions and peoples of foreign lands to be invaded and destroyed. In a bizarre irony, Democratic members of Congress, who have limply responded to the conservative agenda, are labeled as "angry", and liberal Internet bloggers are called "uncivil" for speaking out.
So while the war abroad is collapsing, and the MIC is in many ways attempting to ignore it, the war at home continues in blatant as well as subtle ways. While many of these conservative attacks would be happening irrespective of a foreign war, the existence of the Iraq war and the maintenance of an indefinite "war on terror" has enabled conservatives to weave the spector of fear and treason in with their regular attacks on pluralism, liberalism and modernity.
From someone who saw where we were headed half a century ago:
War is Peace
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
(snip)
War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member [citizen] is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.
(snip)
In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat.
(snip)
But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police.
(snip)
...the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.
Does any of this sound familiar?
So what does this mean? Well, it at least suggests that the MIC has implicitly, if not explicitly, accepted the notion that the war, as a vehicle of smashing the Middle East, neuturing Islam, and giving birth to a new American hegemony, born of either intimidation or good will, is lost. That some form of government will eventually form in Mesopotamia, whether as one or three nations, won't change the essentials of this conclusion.
So the war as an explicitly foreign endeavor, a symbol of America's international ambitions and prestige, has gone up in smoke.
But this doesn't mean that the "war" is over or that it doesn't still matter for the talking heads on MSNBCFoxCNN. This is because the war's other, more important internal dimension is still hanging by a thread. For many backers of the "war" in Iraq, its domestic aims were as important as its stated and contrived international ones.
And what were these domestic aims? To silence and, if possible, punish opposition to the Bush presidency and to the conservative establishment. To continue the climate of fear 911 had delivered. To help enforce conformity and remake American life. To spur a new ethic of "obedience", mass passivity, and submission to authority. To eradicate liberal individualism, academic freedom, and political and religious pluralism.
As I write these lines I'm a little shocked at myself. You're going overboard Bulworth. But am I? How has the MIC, particularly its cable variation, responded to Democratic Party opposition to the president, to the NSA spying reports, to the Alito nomination, first to Howard Dean and then to John Kerry's candidacy, to the movies and ads of so-called liberal symbols like Michael Moore and Moveon.org? In 2002-2003 we heard how vital it was that the country follow Bush's lead and go to war, "pre-emptively" against Iraq; what little war opposition existed was roundly treated as treasonous. And when the invasion failed to turn up WMD, it was 2004 and the MIC was then able to focus on John Kerry's alleged "flip-floppiness" rather than his war service, saluted the GOP's 2004 convention speakers who reiterated the "opposition to war as treason" line, failing to question the "purple heart bandaids" and angry talk of conventioneers like Zell Miller, and later trumpeted Bush's 51% victory in November as a "mandate".
As 2005 bloomed, the president's failing Social Security campaign, followed by the Terri Schiavo debacle, followed by the Harriet Myers nomination, and then the disasterous Katrina Hurricane and FEMA bungling made MIC cheerleading for the president difficult. Nonetheless, as 2006 began the MIC began sounding notes of the president's public opinion "rebound" although his approval numbers remained mired in the upper 30's and low to middle 40's.
The NSA spying report, meanwhile, has given the MIC the opportunity to reinsert the GWOT theme, criticizing opponents of the previously secret and poorly defended wiretapping project as "not wanting to do anything and everything possible to fight terrorism".
Simultaneously, the nation's political and religious pluralism is coming under increasing attack and scorn. The "war", for whichever country or "operation" that term is meant to imply these days, serves however indirectly, as a vehicle for strengthening the forces of theocracy, who see in it as a means of destroying Islam and enhancing America's global and religious prestige, and instilling fear and conformity at home. Emboldened by having "one of their own" in the WH, America's religious right, comprised of both Catholic and Protestant elites who were once bitter enemies, have dictated judicial selections, court and executive appointments and public policy generally, while inciting the passions of the faithful through three "Justice Sunday" events designed to draw attention to America's supposed Christian heritage and plea for substituting the Torah for the Constitution.
Coincidentally, the president's list of court applicants is composed almost entirely of representatives of The Federalist Society, formed in the 1980's in response to the liberalizing affects of the Warren and Burger Courts, and calling for a new judicial model known as "originalism" or "strict constructivism", which regardless of its name dejure, happens to support the restriction of privacy rights and civil liberties, while expanding the power of corporate and governmental elites.
In the lead up to the war, and during the war's initial months, one of the two or three media companies that owns and runs all the radio stations in America helped organize so-called "pro-war" rallies, events that were in truth more anti-American than pro-war, as speakers denounced regular and celebrity Americans opposed to the Iraq war or those who were in any way critical of the president. Records by the Dixie Chicks were smashed.
The two institutions largely insulated from the conservative reaction, university campuses and black churches, have come in for their own inspection and retribution. So-called "Academic Bills of Rights" have been initiated by several states with their stated intentions to target "liberal" or "unAmerican" professors and modernist views generally for punishment and expulsion. Meanwhile, when black civil rights leaders speak against the war during the funerals of their leaders, they're labeled as unnecessarily political and disrespectful of authority.
Right wing radio and cable TV hosts and guests routinely attack liberals and liberalism as unAmerican, vile, and degenerate, and call for the religions and peoples of foreign lands to be invaded and destroyed. In a bizarre irony, Democratic members of Congress, who have limply responded to the conservative agenda, are labeled as "angry", and liberal Internet bloggers are called "uncivil" for speaking out.
So while the war abroad is collapsing, and the MIC is in many ways attempting to ignore it, the war at home continues in blatant as well as subtle ways. While many of these conservative attacks would be happening irrespective of a foreign war, the existence of the Iraq war and the maintenance of an indefinite "war on terror" has enabled conservatives to weave the spector of fear and treason in with their regular attacks on pluralism, liberalism and modernity.
From someone who saw where we were headed half a century ago:
War is Peace
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
(snip)
War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member [citizen] is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.
(snip)
In past ages, a war, almost by definition, was something that sooner or later came to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat.
(snip)
But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded. As we have seen, researches that could be called scientific are still carried out for the purposes of war, but they are essentially a kind of daydreaming, and their failure to show results is not important. Efficiency, even military efficiency, is no longer needed. Nothing is efficient in Oceania except the Thought Police.
(snip)
...the citizen of Oceania is like a man in interstellar space, who has no way of knowing which direction is up and which is down. The rulers of such a state are absolute, as the Pharaohs or the Caesars could not be. They are obliged to prevent their followers from starving to death in numbers large enough to be inconvenient, and they are obliged to remain at the same low level of military technique as their rivals; but once that minimum is achieved, they can twist reality into whatever shape they choose.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Puncture This
In the field of public policy studies, there's this little thing known as the punctuated equilibrium theory. Basically it says that policymaking is mostly stable, consisting of small, incremental steps here and there until things kind of explode and big things happen. Then, after the big thing happens and some significant policy change has ocurred, the system settles in at the new level of equilibrium and policymaking marches on in the same relatively quiet incremental level as before.
In today's political-media climate, we've seen a lot of this. Katrina was really big for about a week or so, maybe two. There was a hearing thrown in there, where FEMA flunky Michael Brown got grilled by the members of the House of People's Deputies. Everybody felt good about that. Blame was assigned, sort of, although there was a lot of concern on the part of the Media Industrial Complex that nobody be blamed for anything in the case of Katrina; after all, nobody knew how bad it would be, that the levies would break, and why didn't the poor blacks just leave N.O. before hand anyway?
And anyway, before long, we needed a new set of concerns to keep our attention. So when NBC's Brian Williams persisted in keeping the Katrina story afloat, months after it ocurred, well, some viewers just thought that was making too much of the whole deal.
After reading James Wolcott's skewering of Don Imus' Emily Post moment re: the Coretta Scott King funeral, something Wolcott said made me realize that the nation's concern with foreign policy has undergone a similar punctured equilibrium kind of thing, particularly when it comes to Iraq, Iran, and the war on terror.
In the months leading up to the Iraqi invasion the Media Industrial Complex was red-hot on the case of Iraq: Iraq and Saddam Hussein weren't living up to their agreements; they were in "material breach" of UN resolutions (this from a media and country that routinely spits on international law and cooperative mechanisms); they had WMD (in stockpiles); they were harboring terrorists; when the inspections resumed, they were immediately declared to be "not working"; Iraq's people were being held hostage by a vile "dictator" bent on our, and his own people's destruction; Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his neighbors and his own people (with the U.S. government's past collusion in such undertakings going un-mentioned); even though Saddam Hussein's Iraq was an imminent and potentially lethal threat to America and the world, its conquest would be a "cakewalk" and the Iraqi people would great us as "liberators"; we would quickly round up the WMD Saddam Hussein was hiding because "we knew where it was"; America had to act quickly, now, to take out Saddam Hussein, liberate Iraq, and prevent another 9-11. Yada Yada Yada.
But now, three years later, well, the Media Industrial Complex, or at least the Right Wing Intelligencia that owns the media and is more frequently hosting or otherwise bloviating on its cable tv "news" programs, is just really bored with the whole thing. Yes, yes, the "war" is still going on, 130,000 American troops are still mired in the country of Iraq; the only functioning safe part of the country is a concrete-barricaded "green zone" behind which the media's correspondents hide out in the hotels, few venturing outside to see any of the action first-hand. Some of those who have, have either been bombed or kidnapped.
And now, we hear that Iran is using the opportunity to get all uppity with the International Nuclear Arms Inspection regime and the UN over its nuclear energy projects. The west, which continues to hold onto its stash of nukes, thinks Iran, and the fanatical mullahs that run it, would be deathly dangerous with any nuclear capabilities. Such weapons would enable the violently Shiite country of Iran to harass Israel and "our vital resources" throughout the Middle East. Iran is breaking its agreements and is "defying" the UN and the world community.
And yet, while a looming confrontation with Iran thrills some members of the MIC in general and its division of neoconry in particular, and even though events in Iran and its nuclear ambitions has generated some paranoidish media coverage, I get the sense that their hearts aren't really in it. Nor do I sense the real Americans of Bobo's world are all that motivated by Iran either. They got their yah-yahs out in Iraq already. The thirst to smash some hopeless, backward, undermilitarized country has been satiated. Now they are just bored.
Getting back to James Wolcott's column, here's what he says about Imus:
"...Imus has a new fundraising crusade, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, a nonprofit state-of-the-art facility for veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. It's commendable for Imus to raise money and awareness for the facility, but he knows as well as anyone that the reason military men and women are returning home with missing limbs, psychic trauma, nervous disorders, and loss of sight and hearing is because they were sent to fight a war that was based on deception and waged with cavalier disregard for the consequences. Many if not most of those fallen heroes suffered their severe injuries because Bush, Cheney, and their neocon advisors didn't prepare adequately for war and underestimated the enemy, to the sorrow of thousands. And yet Imus wants to attend to the veterans' pain and suffering without holding those accountable for their plight the least bit responsible. Instead, we're told, as the warbloggers often say, to 'get over it.' Why? Because Imus is bored with the whole debate. And when Imus is bored, the whole world is supposed to move on to accomodate his attention span."
I think the attitude Wolcott hears Imus and those like him exuding is reflective of this. They've had their fun. But now they're "tired" of hearing complaints about Bush, about FEMA's cronies, about "Rummy", about Iraq, the deficit, and on and on. It's all just so blandly partisan after all. So when people who forget their place get all uppity on national television, and mention the war in Iraq that Imus and his media buddies were so psyched about three years ago but now want to forget when its all gone to pot and its continuance has no further useful purpose, well, that's just too much, too offensive for their virgin ears. Can't the unwashed masses be kept away from the truly decent folk, like those on Imus' show that spout rascist, homophobic, and anti-democratic inanities day in and day out?
And Iran, terrorism and WMD? Please. Don't bother the kool kids on Imus or Tweety about that stuff. And don't bring up the NSA spying thing either. They're really just bored of the whole thing and want to move on to something more to their liking. Presidential criticism was in when it was Clinton and when it was about sex. But it's not now. So you liberals, don't you be angry no more. And now with the war they started overstaying its welcome, they're not really so excited about somebody else's WMD either. Just go back to your regularly scheduled program.
In today's political-media climate, we've seen a lot of this. Katrina was really big for about a week or so, maybe two. There was a hearing thrown in there, where FEMA flunky Michael Brown got grilled by the members of the House of People's Deputies. Everybody felt good about that. Blame was assigned, sort of, although there was a lot of concern on the part of the Media Industrial Complex that nobody be blamed for anything in the case of Katrina; after all, nobody knew how bad it would be, that the levies would break, and why didn't the poor blacks just leave N.O. before hand anyway?
And anyway, before long, we needed a new set of concerns to keep our attention. So when NBC's Brian Williams persisted in keeping the Katrina story afloat, months after it ocurred, well, some viewers just thought that was making too much of the whole deal.
After reading James Wolcott's skewering of Don Imus' Emily Post moment re: the Coretta Scott King funeral, something Wolcott said made me realize that the nation's concern with foreign policy has undergone a similar punctured equilibrium kind of thing, particularly when it comes to Iraq, Iran, and the war on terror.
In the months leading up to the Iraqi invasion the Media Industrial Complex was red-hot on the case of Iraq: Iraq and Saddam Hussein weren't living up to their agreements; they were in "material breach" of UN resolutions (this from a media and country that routinely spits on international law and cooperative mechanisms); they had WMD (in stockpiles); they were harboring terrorists; when the inspections resumed, they were immediately declared to be "not working"; Iraq's people were being held hostage by a vile "dictator" bent on our, and his own people's destruction; Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his neighbors and his own people (with the U.S. government's past collusion in such undertakings going un-mentioned); even though Saddam Hussein's Iraq was an imminent and potentially lethal threat to America and the world, its conquest would be a "cakewalk" and the Iraqi people would great us as "liberators"; we would quickly round up the WMD Saddam Hussein was hiding because "we knew where it was"; America had to act quickly, now, to take out Saddam Hussein, liberate Iraq, and prevent another 9-11. Yada Yada Yada.
But now, three years later, well, the Media Industrial Complex, or at least the Right Wing Intelligencia that owns the media and is more frequently hosting or otherwise bloviating on its cable tv "news" programs, is just really bored with the whole thing. Yes, yes, the "war" is still going on, 130,000 American troops are still mired in the country of Iraq; the only functioning safe part of the country is a concrete-barricaded "green zone" behind which the media's correspondents hide out in the hotels, few venturing outside to see any of the action first-hand. Some of those who have, have either been bombed or kidnapped.
And now, we hear that Iran is using the opportunity to get all uppity with the International Nuclear Arms Inspection regime and the UN over its nuclear energy projects. The west, which continues to hold onto its stash of nukes, thinks Iran, and the fanatical mullahs that run it, would be deathly dangerous with any nuclear capabilities. Such weapons would enable the violently Shiite country of Iran to harass Israel and "our vital resources" throughout the Middle East. Iran is breaking its agreements and is "defying" the UN and the world community.
And yet, while a looming confrontation with Iran thrills some members of the MIC in general and its division of neoconry in particular, and even though events in Iran and its nuclear ambitions has generated some paranoidish media coverage, I get the sense that their hearts aren't really in it. Nor do I sense the real Americans of Bobo's world are all that motivated by Iran either. They got their yah-yahs out in Iraq already. The thirst to smash some hopeless, backward, undermilitarized country has been satiated. Now they are just bored.
Getting back to James Wolcott's column, here's what he says about Imus:
"...Imus has a new fundraising crusade, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund, a nonprofit state-of-the-art facility for veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. It's commendable for Imus to raise money and awareness for the facility, but he knows as well as anyone that the reason military men and women are returning home with missing limbs, psychic trauma, nervous disorders, and loss of sight and hearing is because they were sent to fight a war that was based on deception and waged with cavalier disregard for the consequences. Many if not most of those fallen heroes suffered their severe injuries because Bush, Cheney, and their neocon advisors didn't prepare adequately for war and underestimated the enemy, to the sorrow of thousands. And yet Imus wants to attend to the veterans' pain and suffering without holding those accountable for their plight the least bit responsible. Instead, we're told, as the warbloggers often say, to 'get over it.' Why? Because Imus is bored with the whole debate. And when Imus is bored, the whole world is supposed to move on to accomodate his attention span."
I think the attitude Wolcott hears Imus and those like him exuding is reflective of this. They've had their fun. But now they're "tired" of hearing complaints about Bush, about FEMA's cronies, about "Rummy", about Iraq, the deficit, and on and on. It's all just so blandly partisan after all. So when people who forget their place get all uppity on national television, and mention the war in Iraq that Imus and his media buddies were so psyched about three years ago but now want to forget when its all gone to pot and its continuance has no further useful purpose, well, that's just too much, too offensive for their virgin ears. Can't the unwashed masses be kept away from the truly decent folk, like those on Imus' show that spout rascist, homophobic, and anti-democratic inanities day in and day out?
And Iran, terrorism and WMD? Please. Don't bother the kool kids on Imus or Tweety about that stuff. And don't bring up the NSA spying thing either. They're really just bored of the whole thing and want to move on to something more to their liking. Presidential criticism was in when it was Clinton and when it was about sex. But it's not now. So you liberals, don't you be angry no more. And now with the war they started overstaying its welcome, they're not really so excited about somebody else's WMD either. Just go back to your regularly scheduled program.
Cartoons and Movies
It probably was entirely coincidental that as the cartoon outrage in the Middle East continues, and as Westerners creepily lecture Muslims to not get all indignant about the blasphemous drawing of its Prophet, I today read in the NYT where America's Christian Right is getting creepily indignant about the soon to be released movie version of the wildly popular novel, The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, wherein the Christian Right's Prophet is blasphemously said to have been married to Mary Magdalene. The movie company has set up a webpage for agrieved fundamentalists, affectively giving opponents of the Da Vinci book and movie a "bullhorn" to trumpet their objections.
One of the representative "evangelists" to post on the site will be Gordon Robertson, the son of Marion "Pat" Robertson.
The apocalypse is upon us.
One of the representative "evangelists" to post on the site will be Gordon Robertson, the son of Marion "Pat" Robertson.
The apocalypse is upon us.
Monday, February 06, 2006
"Love Won Out"
The post's title comes from the Focus on the Family's anti-gay project. By demonstrating that formerly gay people can be converted back to a straight lifestyle, the totalitarian right hopes to prove them capable of "change" and their underlying gay "choice" or condition unnatural and undesirable. Because such an endeavor isn't naturally very kind to the reality of gayness, the project's directors have to somehow cloak it with the word "love" to hide its malignant designs.
Unfortunately, the idea that there is something wrong, even anti-social, about gay people lends itself to some more rather direct and outright unloving responses. Such as this one:
MOUNTAIN HOME, Ark. - The teenager suspected of attacking three men at a Massachusetts gay bar and killing an Arkansas officer and a female companion left a note indicating he planned "something violent," authorities said Monday.
Jacob D. Robida, 18, was fatally wounded when he opened fire on officers at a roadblock following a high-speed chase through the Arkansas hills. He was shot twice in the head and died at a hospital Sunday.
In New Bedford, Mass., where police say Robida attacked patrons at Puzzles Lounge with a hatchet early Thursday and then opened fire with a handgun, detectives found what they considered a troubling message in Robida's room, Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh Jr. said Monday.
"We didn't interpret it necessarily as a suicide note, but it was certainly the note of a desperate man who had some plans to continue doing something violent," Walsh said.
Police said the high school dropout had returned to his home after the attack at the bar, but it was unclear whether he left the note before or after the attack. The content of the note was not immediately released.
In addition to the message, police found an apparently homemade poster with a Nazi swastika and anti-Semitic writings, as well as a makeshift coffin, Walsh said. He said the significance of the coffin isn't known.
Police also were trying to determine whether Robida had any accomplices in New Bedford or elsewhere, though evidence suggests he acted alone, Walsh said.
After the New Bedford attack, which police labeled a hate crime, Robida surfaced Saturday in Arkansas, where he killed Gassville police officer Jim Sell at a traffic stop, setting off a 20-mile chase from Gassville to Norfork as deputies and state troopers fired shotguns at Robida. Spike strips finally slowed Robida's car to around 30 mph.
"The tires were deflating, at least two of the tires were now running on rims," Arkansas State Police spokesman Bill Sadler said. "It was apparent he was losing control of the vehicle."
Officers had a clear view of Robida and his passenger, Jennifer Rena Bailey, 33, of Charleston, W.Va., after Robida's car spun nearly 180 degrees and crashed.
"Investigators now believe Robida raised a handgun to the head of Bailey, fired, and it is believed she was killed instantly by that gunshot," Sadler said. "Robida raised that same handgun and fired on the officers who were present at the scene. They returned fire."
Walsh said he had feared Robida's arrest could have been even bloodier. New Bedford authorities had issued public warnings that they considered Robida armed, dangerous and possible suicidal.
"I really thought he was going to take five or six people with him," Walsh said. "My fear was that he'd shoot up the works."
"Someone who's just bent on rage, there's no way they're going to go out without a hail of gunfire," said New Bedford police Lt. Richard M. Spirlet.
It's hard to imagine what motivates someone like this. But the fact that he chose to act out his rage in the way he did, and given the contextual indications of his "hobbies" and worldview, it does raise the obvious question as to how this guy came to believe gays were the source of his problems, or an appropriate target of his frustrations.
Groups like Focus/Family are fond of drawing causal connections between social vices, like pornography, and violence against women. I wonder what causal connection they might make between anti-gay zeolotry by Christians and this man's beliefs?
Unfortunately, the idea that there is something wrong, even anti-social, about gay people lends itself to some more rather direct and outright unloving responses. Such as this one:
MOUNTAIN HOME, Ark. - The teenager suspected of attacking three men at a Massachusetts gay bar and killing an Arkansas officer and a female companion left a note indicating he planned "something violent," authorities said Monday.
Jacob D. Robida, 18, was fatally wounded when he opened fire on officers at a roadblock following a high-speed chase through the Arkansas hills. He was shot twice in the head and died at a hospital Sunday.
In New Bedford, Mass., where police say Robida attacked patrons at Puzzles Lounge with a hatchet early Thursday and then opened fire with a handgun, detectives found what they considered a troubling message in Robida's room, Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh Jr. said Monday.
"We didn't interpret it necessarily as a suicide note, but it was certainly the note of a desperate man who had some plans to continue doing something violent," Walsh said.
Police said the high school dropout had returned to his home after the attack at the bar, but it was unclear whether he left the note before or after the attack. The content of the note was not immediately released.
In addition to the message, police found an apparently homemade poster with a Nazi swastika and anti-Semitic writings, as well as a makeshift coffin, Walsh said. He said the significance of the coffin isn't known.
Police also were trying to determine whether Robida had any accomplices in New Bedford or elsewhere, though evidence suggests he acted alone, Walsh said.
After the New Bedford attack, which police labeled a hate crime, Robida surfaced Saturday in Arkansas, where he killed Gassville police officer Jim Sell at a traffic stop, setting off a 20-mile chase from Gassville to Norfork as deputies and state troopers fired shotguns at Robida. Spike strips finally slowed Robida's car to around 30 mph.
"The tires were deflating, at least two of the tires were now running on rims," Arkansas State Police spokesman Bill Sadler said. "It was apparent he was losing control of the vehicle."
Officers had a clear view of Robida and his passenger, Jennifer Rena Bailey, 33, of Charleston, W.Va., after Robida's car spun nearly 180 degrees and crashed.
"Investigators now believe Robida raised a handgun to the head of Bailey, fired, and it is believed she was killed instantly by that gunshot," Sadler said. "Robida raised that same handgun and fired on the officers who were present at the scene. They returned fire."
Walsh said he had feared Robida's arrest could have been even bloodier. New Bedford authorities had issued public warnings that they considered Robida armed, dangerous and possible suicidal.
"I really thought he was going to take five or six people with him," Walsh said. "My fear was that he'd shoot up the works."
"Someone who's just bent on rage, there's no way they're going to go out without a hail of gunfire," said New Bedford police Lt. Richard M. Spirlet.
It's hard to imagine what motivates someone like this. But the fact that he chose to act out his rage in the way he did, and given the contextual indications of his "hobbies" and worldview, it does raise the obvious question as to how this guy came to believe gays were the source of his problems, or an appropriate target of his frustrations.
Groups like Focus/Family are fond of drawing causal connections between social vices, like pornography, and violence against women. I wonder what causal connection they might make between anti-gay zeolotry by Christians and this man's beliefs?
Where's The Party?
Since being caught smooching W at the SOTU address, there's been a lot of attention paid to the approaching primary in Texas's 28th congressional district between real Democrat and former rep Ciro Rodriguez and faux Democrat, current rep, and Bush smoocher, Henry Cuellar.
I have a hard time understanding how this guy, Cuellar, could have even been allowed to file as a Democratic to begin with. He supported Bush in 2000, even went to Wisconsin during the campaign to make his case that a Republican should be elected prez.
Having different voting patterns from national party members I can partially understand. But this is a heavily Hispanic and Democratic district, meaning that conservative votes here shouldn't be needed to hold the seat, so no conservative pandering shouldn't be needed. But most imporantly, if you don't support your party's candidate for president, that sounds like a pretty clear cut case that you shouldn't be allowed to campaign for any offices under your party label.
I hope you'll do as I did and go over to Ciro's webpage and make a donation. Before we can defeat the Republicans who call themselves Republicans and can be plainly seen to be such, we need to defeat any Republicans posing in sheep's clothing, trying to hide in our caucus.
I have a hard time understanding how this guy, Cuellar, could have even been allowed to file as a Democratic to begin with. He supported Bush in 2000, even went to Wisconsin during the campaign to make his case that a Republican should be elected prez.
Having different voting patterns from national party members I can partially understand. But this is a heavily Hispanic and Democratic district, meaning that conservative votes here shouldn't be needed to hold the seat, so no conservative pandering shouldn't be needed. But most imporantly, if you don't support your party's candidate for president, that sounds like a pretty clear cut case that you shouldn't be allowed to campaign for any offices under your party label.
I hope you'll do as I did and go over to Ciro's webpage and make a donation. Before we can defeat the Republicans who call themselves Republicans and can be plainly seen to be such, we need to defeat any Republicans posing in sheep's clothing, trying to hide in our caucus.
Morality is only for the rabble
I occasionaly tune in to programs on conservative Christian TV, so I like to think I'm pretty familiar with the various players and themes. But I was surprised to read this in yesterday's Wash Post Style section on religious orthodoxy and divorce:
Southern Baptists launched their own debate about divorce in 2000 when Charles Stanley, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and a popular television preacher, got divorced.
Charles Stanley is one of the old-timers. He preaches with his Bible in hand, a rarity in today's evangelical world. He's been around forever. He's also your standard Republican Party apologist, America Firster. Yeah for the Iraq war, our cause is just, pray for the troops, etc. Anyway, I didn't realize this annoying blowhard was recently divorced. But let's keep reading:
Long-standing tradition in that denomination holds that men are disqualified from being pastors once they divorce, based on the biblical mandate that ministers be "blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior." But some questioned how to apply those words, and an official at Stanley's church in Atlanta said to loud applause that Stanley would stay in his position, his "personal pain" having validated his ability to minister.
So all that stuff about family values...moral absolutes...they don't really mean it. Well, I should say, they mean it for you, and for the Hollywood elite, but it doesn't apply to them.
As Lance Mannion said a few weeks ago:
What most contemporary Republicans call conservative in themselves is really just authoritarianism. There is nothing conservative about that because of how easily they exempt themselves from the rules they lay down for others to follow.
Divorce is wrong, except mine which was necessary and proves my last marriage didn't count.
Mothers should stay home and take care of the kids, except my wife who is bringing in 6 figures and so we can hire a really good nanny who is not a person in her own right, merely the incarnation of our love for our kids, and so we get credit for being involved parents through her.
Homosexuality is wrong and gay marriage a threat to society, except for my brother and his partner, who aren't really gay.
Duty comes before self, which is why your kids should be proud to die in Iraq but my kids have the opportunity to go to law school so leave them alone.
Etc.
All the supposed "traditional" values the Right preaches are rules for keeping the plebes in line.
Real conservatives do not exempt themselves from the rules. In fact, they believe in holding themselves to a stricter standard---real conservatives believe that it is the job of the elite and the privileged to set an example not just to make rules.
Southern Baptists launched their own debate about divorce in 2000 when Charles Stanley, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and a popular television preacher, got divorced.
Charles Stanley is one of the old-timers. He preaches with his Bible in hand, a rarity in today's evangelical world. He's been around forever. He's also your standard Republican Party apologist, America Firster. Yeah for the Iraq war, our cause is just, pray for the troops, etc. Anyway, I didn't realize this annoying blowhard was recently divorced. But let's keep reading:
Long-standing tradition in that denomination holds that men are disqualified from being pastors once they divorce, based on the biblical mandate that ministers be "blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior." But some questioned how to apply those words, and an official at Stanley's church in Atlanta said to loud applause that Stanley would stay in his position, his "personal pain" having validated his ability to minister.
So all that stuff about family values...moral absolutes...they don't really mean it. Well, I should say, they mean it for you, and for the Hollywood elite, but it doesn't apply to them.
As Lance Mannion said a few weeks ago:
What most contemporary Republicans call conservative in themselves is really just authoritarianism. There is nothing conservative about that because of how easily they exempt themselves from the rules they lay down for others to follow.
Divorce is wrong, except mine which was necessary and proves my last marriage didn't count.
Mothers should stay home and take care of the kids, except my wife who is bringing in 6 figures and so we can hire a really good nanny who is not a person in her own right, merely the incarnation of our love for our kids, and so we get credit for being involved parents through her.
Homosexuality is wrong and gay marriage a threat to society, except for my brother and his partner, who aren't really gay.
Duty comes before self, which is why your kids should be proud to die in Iraq but my kids have the opportunity to go to law school so leave them alone.
Etc.
All the supposed "traditional" values the Right preaches are rules for keeping the plebes in line.
Real conservatives do not exempt themselves from the rules. In fact, they believe in holding themselves to a stricter standard---real conservatives believe that it is the job of the elite and the privileged to set an example not just to make rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)